Vice-President Rebecca Porter called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. She remarked on the problem of lost nametags at meetings. Since they cost $4.00 each, it was advised that members take care of their nametags.

Agenda Item II: Minutes Update.

Coordinator David Frisby gave a status report on the minutes. October, November and December are almost ready. Portions still need to be reviewed by some individuals. They will be put in campus mail for approval at the March meeting.

Agenda Item III: Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald Bepko.

Chancellor Bepko remarked on a couple of recent events that reflect the life, vitality, and quality of the university family. The IUPUI Chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers, based at IUPUIís School of Engineering and Technology, was p
resented the "Chapter of the Year" designation from the NSBE regional organization of chapters. The administration is very proud because it is believed that the School of Engineering and Technology will play a very important part in the future of the Stat
e of Indiana, and it will be extremely important for us to attract, encourage and see the success of persons who are underrepresented in the engineering field.

The previous weekend was IUPUI Homecoming weekend. There was a homecoming gathering, including a basketball game, which our IUPUI Metros won by a handy score. President Myles Brand was on hand and about 1,000 people watched the game, the largest attend
ance at any sporting event that weíve ever had at IUPUI. This type of excitement is important for the university, since the growth of sports as a rallying point for undergraduate students helps to encourage them to bond more with the institution. More imp
ortant than that, the Intercollegiate Athletics Department just posted its grades. The GPA for intercollegiate athletics was 2.72 on our four-point scale, which is well above the overall average for undergraduate students. No less than three teamsóvolleyb
all, women's tennis, and men's tennis, had GPAís above 3.0.

Agenda Item IV: President of the Faculty Report: William Schneider.

President Schneider remarked that the new Indiana University Academic Handbook had been distributed. The plan was for the IUPUI supplement to come out at the same time, but it is not out yet. The final proofs are done and it is at the printer, wait
ing on some cost estimates. There will be a status report on them at the next meeting.

Because of the time of year, the agenda today is patterned to interconnect to University Faculty Council (UFC) agenda items. The next meeting in March will be more campus-specific.

UFC will meet next Tuesday afternoon at IUB. UFC members can meet after this meeting to arrange ride sharing.

The trustees will be meeting here at IUPUI on Friday afternoon, February 27, at the Conference Center; it is a public meeting.

Wilkins reported that the slate for president and vice-president is not yet complete, as it is still waiting the consent of a nominee. By Monday the slate for president and vice-president should be sent out along with biographical information on th
e four people, in anticipation of the vote at the March meeting. The slate for the UFC is complete, and the slate for at-large candidates should be in the mail by Monday.

The delay this year was caused by the time it takes to verify peopleís willingness to run. The hard work of the Nominating Committee and the coordinator is much appreciated. The slate so far is very strong.

Agenda Item VI: IU Policy on Research Integrity and Guidelines for Establishing Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct (see attachment*): Kimberly Quaid & Ike Levy [On web at http://www.indiana.edu/~resrisk/mispol.html a
nd compare IUPUI Committee on Ethics in Research at

President Schneider introduced the policy under discussion. It is a university policy that has already been in effect as an interim policy and under which our campus has already developed procedures. It has not yet been approved by the UFC or the t
rustees; the IUPUI Faculty Councilís vote today will be the start of the process of making the policy official. Next week it will go before the UFC, and then hopefully to the trustees by the end of the month. Kimberly Quaid and Ike Levy will provide some
background.

Levy reported that there have been policies on this campus for 10-12 years. The development of the policies has gone in reverse from the norm. The federal government first addressed this roughly in 1986. Meanwhile, IUPUI developed policies because of c
oncerns from the medical school. The federal government subsequently adopted regulations. After the federal regulations were passed, IUB concluded there should be an all-university policy. This policy adopts the federal regulations. In addition to the reg
ulations, a federal commission came up with a series of recommendations which have not been adopted yet; many of these unadopted recommendations have been included in the handouts. A lot of those recommendations focussed on the definition of research misc
onduct. For instance, in the definition of research misconduct (page 3 of the handout), an indented paragraph is included from the federal regulations as they currently existóregulations which IUPUI had previously adopted and what this policy is adopting.
At the bottom of that page, however, are several guidelines recommending how to interpret this definition. These recommended guidelines have not been adopted in any official way, and it is not known if they are going to be adopted. Levy stated that his i
nclination was to wait and see what is adopted and then adopt whatever is finally put in the regulations.

Quaid commented that the recommendations have the potential to expand the scope of what the committee is supposed to investigate. Levy agreed, saying that as a member of the committee he has a vested interest in its scope and direction.

Robertson asked if the definition of misconduct on page 2 applies to all disciplines. Levy was not sure, but stated that the intent of the policy was to address scientific misconduct.

Baldwin expressed concern about vagueness in the definition of misconduct in research, particularly the phrases like fabrications or falsifications that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research community. Levy respond
ed that this is why the commission was convened and came up with the recommendations to help interpret the definitions. They may not represent a consensus of the scientific community, and they have caused a lot of controversy.

Besch commented that the NIH and the National Academy of Sciences have some other wording that differs from these recommendations. Their principles and these documents have not been resolved into one policy.

Chancellor Bepko explained that the canon of interpretation of legal passages like this are known by the Latin expression generalia specialibus non derogant, which suggests that when you have a list of things followed by a general proposition li
ke "other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted," the general language takes its meaning from the list of specific things that comes before it. This means that this probably should be read as saying "fabrica
tion, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that are like fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism." In other words the theme of this is some kind of misrepresentation, and the language "other practices" has to be defined in that w
ay.

Wagner wondered why "scientific misconduct" is addressed rather than "research misconduct." Schneider responded that this is a question for the UFC. The IUPUI Committee on Ethics in Research can also address this, and the campus gri
evance procedures may also address this since they must conform to university policy.

Spechler asked whether the situation of a professor who decides to publish the results of a study under his or her name without attributing the names of the graduate students who contributed research would be a violation of the policy. Levy said probab
ly yes under the expanded definitions of research misconduct that include "Misappropriation"-- taking someone elseís ideas and not giving appropriate attribution to them.

Baldwin asked if the phrase "misappropriations of physical material" also includes misappropriation of funds, and if so, can "funds" be written in for clarification. N. Fineberg agreed. Chancellor Bepko responded that there are othe
r policies that cover misappropriation of funds. Besch commented that the writers of the policy were careful not to include criminal activities, which are already forbidden. He also recommended that the word "immediately" in the phrase "inq
uiring immediately into an allegation" on page 7 item 2 be changed to "promptly."

Porter asked for a motion for either general support or non-support to allow UFC representatives to be directed in how they should represent our campus.

E. Fineberg moved and Rodak seconded that the council support the policy. The motion carried.

Agenda Item VII. This agenda item was postponed until later. See below.

Hook reported that she has provided information to and received feedback from the campus (including a website) on the Faculty Review and Enhancement Policy. The concerns and questions seem to focus around four or five main issues. The sub-committee
from the Faculty Affairs Committee will begin the process of creating a second draft. She also has distributed from the UFC Faculty Affairs Committee a request to the regional campuses for their feedback on the document asking more generally whether ther
e are some overreaching guidelines and principles that can be adopted university-wide. This will be discussed at next weekís UFC meeting.

The Faculty Affairs Committee will also be addressing the question of non-tenure track faculty. The UFC Faculty Affairs Committee has been gathering information, including information from Laura Neff, who is the part-time faculty liaison on this campus
, and co-chairs Pat Brantlinger and Bill Burgan, and is making a second attempt at a policy for non-tenure track faculty. It will be discussed at the UFC.

Spechler commented on post-tenure review. Colleagues from the IUB branch of the American Association of University Professors are not convinced that we need post-tenure review at all. Ken Gros Louis, Vice-President for Academic Affairs of Indiana Unive
rsity, indicated that if competent annual reports were made on a regular and reliable basis, he did not see much of a reason for post-tenure review. President Brand also stated at a meeting of the UFC that he would like to look at intermediate sanctions t
o assure reasonably satisfactory performance by faculty.

Spechler went on to state that the committee has not stated why post-tenure review is needed when many departments already regularly review professors in the annual review process, that thereís no evidence of outside pressure to address post-tenure rev
iew, and that post-tenure review may turn out to be time-consuming and difficult. The annual review process is much more helpful; it is done by department committees with ad hoc support by the dean. Problems have been solved this way with discretion and s
ensitivity. The post-tenure review document adds another layer of review, when what should be done is an incremental investigation of the earlier stageóthe regular reports done by colleagues.

Porter noted that there was only time for clarification of Hookís general progress report; there will be other opportunities to actively discuss the issue.

Hook responded that intermediate sanctions are being considered. The plan also already assumes existing annual review procedures are being used; the added level is only for those few individuals who are deemed to be chronically unproductive. She compli
mented the dean of her school, Dean Goldblatt, for its annual review procedures. Other schools may need to beef up their processes.

E. Fineberg agreed that the need for post-tenure review needs to be investigated, particularly how itís addressed on a national level.

Schneider explained the process the report has gone through. The report came from a university-wide committee co-chaired by Warfel, and passed through the UFC Agenda Committee to this campus. The IUPUI Athletics Committee will want to take a look a
t it, so unless there is just universal agreement of this council now, the report will go to committee and return to the council for a more formal vote in March. It will be discussed at UFC next Tuesday, but not voted on. Bill Kulsrud, chair of the IUPUI
Athletics Committee, was also on the university-wide committee.

Warfel reported that the document describes how the intercollegiate athletics programs at Indiana University are going to be governed and to a certain extent how they will relate to one another. The document begins with a statement of mission and goals
, and goes on to develop the distinction between the campus teams and the university teams. The IUB teams are considered the Indiana University Intercollegiate Athletics Teams, and the president plays the role of the governor for those teams. For the team
s on the other campuses, the president generally delegates responsibilities to the campus chancellor. The campus athletics committee's structure and functions is at the heart of this document. The language reflects a balance between the needs for faculty
governance and the very practical needs of administrators in this day and age of intercollegiate athletics. A new structure created by this draft document is the Athletics Coordinating Council, a small body that would serve mainly as a forum for developme
nt of consistency and conflict resolution between the Division I programs. The report was generated for two reasons: IUPUIís move to Division I which created two Division I programs at Indiana University; and the need for IUB to update its old athletics p
olicy in which faculty governance had a significant role, and which has since become unworkable. The study committee was charged to formulate a policy that balances the need for faculty governance and the needs of administration. The study committee is sa
tisfied that this is a good product.

Banta noted that the NCAA requires that in the self-study for approval of Division I status, the mission and goals of the athletics program must be related to the mission and goals of the campus. She asked if the report, if adopted, becomes the IUPUI g
oals. Warfel responded that generally IU policies have to be consistent with campus mission statements. She and Banta then debated whether the writing in the reportís mission statement was sufficiently linked to IUPUIís or IUís mission statement. Kulsrud
noted that the campus Athletics Committee had recently re-written its goals at the same time that the Athletics Governance Committee was meeting, so they are virtually indistinguishable from one another.

Baldwin wondered why the IUB teams are considered university teams under the president, while the others are considered regional teams.

Spechler asked if the policy would continue to allow dissenters on athletic policies to be excluded from being elected to campus athletic policy committees by a veto from the president or chancellor. (He cited Professor Sperber as an example.) Presiden
t Schneider said no, the policy calls for the faculty council to establish the means of selection. Chancellor Bepko remarked that Mark Rosentraub, an IUPUI faculty member and known dissenter, was made co-chair of the steering committee for the NCAA visit.
There was further brief discussion of the selection process.

Schneider noted that traditionally there have been two committees--a council committee and the chancellorís committeeóand that the two should be reduced to one.

President Schneider explained that this is another item that came from the UFC from a study committee that was created by the president, and it will be taken up at the UFC meeting next week. It does not require a simple vote up or down, but rather
is the beginning of a process of review. Tom Duffy presented a report.

Duffy gave a 15 minute overview of the work of the Distance Education Committee (now the Distributed Education Committee), which began work February/March of 1997 and concluded its business in December. President Brandís charge to Blaise Cronin was to
start the committee and address three questions: 1) should IU be involved in the distributed education environment. If so, 2) which direction should we proceed; and 3) what infrastructure changes are needed. Duffy then summarized the activities of the com
mittee and of the long-range strategic plan, which has been completed.

In the report, the concept of distributed education was supported; some factors in the report were changing U.S. demographics: the deregulation of higher education, digitalization, and the growing interactivity between students. Seven areas were select
ed for consideration, using the Strategic Directions Charter as criteria for how distributed education can serve the State of Indiana: corporate partnerships, coordination of the campuses, coordination of broad-based programs, determining the readiness of
campus units, enhancing the prestige of the university (particularly in a leadership role in knowledge management), quality of teaching, and lifelong learning.

Infrastructure issues are pressing, and it was recommended that an administrator at the vice-presidential level be appointed to implement the program. Chancellor Bepko added that a group was asked to provide input into these suggestions, and it recomme
nded that an appointment be made at an associate vice-president level and that the office be located at IUPUI, with reporting lines to the Vice-President for Information Technology Resources, Michael McRobbie, and to the Vice-President for Academic Affair
s. A broad-based advisory committee was also recommended.

Spechler raised concerns about the lack of attention to quality and evaluation of productivity.

J. Keck asked whether faculty development needs and issues would be addressed. Duffy replied that it would be addressed by the Center for Teaching and Learning, and an Applied Research Center would be involved in the evaluation of courses and provide f
eedback in the design of courses.

Rothe asked why there was a need to centralize control of this project in the form of another vice-president; he stated that distributed education already exists on this campus and can move forward without centralization. He also expressed concerns abo
ut what topics will be covered and whether the faculty will be downgraded in favor of outside specialists. Duffy suggested that UITS (University Information and Technology Services) is an example of a similar program.

R. Keck asked about the lack of specific statements of costs in the report. Duffy responded that at this stage that ability is limited.

President Schneider concluded the debate by noting where the discussion will be continued. The Executive Committee has found several faculty council committees that this report is relevant to, with academic affairs as the point committee, with the invo
lvement of the planning, technology, and budgetary affairs committees.

Porter introduced the document for discussion and invited comments so that a more final version can be presented at the March council meeting. The current IU Sexual Harassment Policy was passed by the UFC in April of 1988; two years ago a revision
was drafted and the Sexual Harassment Working Group of the Commission on Women served as a campus-wide group that looked at that document. Their report went to the UFC Affirmative Action Committee, which then re-drafted this version, with the assistance o
f Julia Lamber, from the university Affirmative Action Office, and Dorothy (Dottie) Frapwell, of University Counsel. The 1997/98 membership of the Sexual Harassment Working Group has also reviewed this and generated some comments. The primary issue that h
as originated on the IUPUI campus was the inclusion of visitors in the policy.

Sharon Groeger from the University Counselís office explained why the University Counsel is opposed to the idea of including visitors. Groeger stated that the primary objection to including visitors in this policy is that our obligations to protect our
students and employees from sexual harassment are very clear, fairly well defined, and mandated by both state and federal law. That is not the case for visitors--there is no similar law that prevents specifically sexual harassment towards visitors. We do
nít want to either be interpreted as diluting or diminishing our obligations to our students and our employees, nor do we want to elevate our obligations to visitors. Additionally, there is a potential problem that if one takes on an obligation they donít
already have, if one voluntarily assume some responsibility toward somebody, they can actually expose themselves to legal liability they would not have otherwise. That is clearly something that we do not want to do.

Ford asked if a prospective employee would be considered a visitor, particularly in the more informal situation where a colleague is invited to a university just to be looked over. Groeger said generally no, prospective employees of that type are not c
onsidered to be visitors and so are protected under employment laws: if we subjected a candidate for employment to sexual harassment, that would be the same as subjecting an actual employee.

Warfel asked about University Counselís position on whether or not the Affirmative Action Office must investigate all situations, or whether some types of situations can be handled by others. Groeger deferred to the Affirmative Action Office to define
its role, but suggested that in some situations common sense would allow minor problems to be dealt with without contacting the office. When in doubt however, itís best to go through the Affirmative Action Office.

Porter clarified for Yokomoto where the existing policy can be found to allow a comparison with the proposed changes.

Porter asked that suggestions or comments be forwarded to her over the next month, so they can be brought before the drafting committee.

Agenda Item XI: 1998 Campus Campaign: Kathy Warfel.

Warfel reported that the kickoff of the IUPUI 1998 Annual Campus Campaign occurred on IUPUIís birthday, January 28. The campaign will run through much of the spring semester. The Steering Committee of the campaign has identified some campus-wide pr
iorities, including the Division I Athletics Program and University College, with an emphasis on student scholarships. Donations may also be designated toward anything that might be of personal interest. There is a website and a hot-line telephone number.
There will also be a series of raffles, and those pledge cards that are returned early will have three separate chances to be the winner of some nice prize.

Agenda Item XII: Question / Answer Period.

Canty-Mitchell asked the Chancellor about the status of the law school investigations of the hate letters. Chancellor Bepko said there is an ongoing investigation, that there are some leads, but he did not think that anyone had been identified yet.
A reward has been offered, which has now grown to $4,000, for information leading to the identification of the person who is guilty of distributing this scandalous piece of paper. The more important thing, though, is the welfare of the students who are i
n school. The deanís office has made an effort to meet with students to reassure them that there is no jeopardy to them, and to start a better dialogue within the school about issues of cultural diversity and race so that there will be the right kind of o
penness should anything else happen there. Galanti added that the dean has appointed a committee that will be working on the diversity issue in the law school. The law faculty has been very upset about this and has communicated to the students their absol
ute disgust at what has happened, both in class and in correspondence. Bepko noted that Benjamin Hooks visited the law school only about ten days after the event. At a special breakfast meeting open to everyone he discussed this sort of thing, how to reac
t to it, and how the community is afflicted by this kind of terrible act, but it can bring itself back together and start a healing process.